Took Enemy Fire in Edition Wars

[Tony Vargas]

This sounds awesome! is there any chance she'll publish this in any form?

I doubt it's possible. Girl Genius is Phil Folio's, 4e's GSL is very restrictive. But there's really not much to that sort of re-skinning. Come up with alternate names for stuff, a few cool descriptions...

...actually, I think I still have a hand-out...

Yeah, here it is... so, instead of of being slowed, immobilized, or restrained you were 'hobbled,' rooted or bound, and instead of weakened you were 'enervated.' Oh, I liked having CA, it was "Gain the Upper Hand."

One thing that was funny was that it anticipated 5e in that there were no minor actions, there were actions that you 'used instead of a standard attack' actions you used 'instead of a move,' and actions you could just use that didn't say 'instead of' anything. In theory, you could have popped off a lot of those, but they were all encounters or dailies.... oh, which were called "Dramatic Moments" and "Plot Points" respectively.

 

[mkill]

I doubt it's possible. Girl Genius is Phil Folio's, 4e's GSL is very restrictive. But there's really not much to that sort of re-skinning. Come up with alternate names for stuff, a few cool descriptions...

It might be worth a shot contacting Phil Folio...

Anyway, even if this won't be a full-fledged product, it would be great to hear about it in a few blog posts or so, to get some ideas. If she puts her notes online somewhere, everything in there should be covered under fair use.

 

[Umbran]

and all of it can get shockingly vitriolic, considering that, at the end of the day, all of us are just a bunch of freakin' nerds.

The phenomenon is somtiems referred to as Sayre's Law:

"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

Originally coined for other communities, it fits gaming just fine, as it is a human phenomenon.

 

[Lwaxy]

When 4e came out and I tried it, I had a majorly averse reaction. This was not because of the game by itself. I am sure had it been marketed under any other brand name, and, much more importantly, would not have come with a, from my view, complete mess up of the Forgotten Realms, changes to other things like naming half the elves Eladrin, I would have liked it.

As it was, it didn't feel like D&D to me at all. It was like a betrayal by the game designers, and with 2 exceptions, everyone I knew felt the same way.

I have serious doubts that the edition wars in regards to 4e are based on how the game plays in most cases. As it was just pointed out, you rename some things and change the background and the same people who hate hate hate 4e suddenly like it.

So when someone goes at you for playing a board game, miniature game, how messed up the rules are or whatever, most of the time what they are saying is "how can you support the edition that betrayed all that our D&D stood for?" Harass the 4e players, so they might stop playing (as if) and maybe 4e will fail and we get the "real" D&D back.

The 2 people from my groups who also play 4e say that they just ignored the changes to the settings and racial backgrounds and added a few house rules. Something we basically did a lot with all editions.

Of course, now some other 4e players claim that they do not really play 4e

 

[Mark CMG]

I have serious doubts that the edition wars in regards to 4e are based on how the game plays in most cases. As it was just pointed out, you rename some things and change the background and the same people who hate hate hate 4e suddenly like it.

So when someone goes at you for playing a board game, miniature game, how messed up the rules are or whatever, most of the time what they are saying is "how can you support the edition that betrayed all that our D&D stood for?" Harass the 4e players, so they might stop playing (as if) and maybe 4e will fail and we get the "real" D&D back.

Painting one group as almost completely irrational while simultaneously dismissing their rational points might be as blatant an edition war statement as I've seen on EN World in some time. This thread already has a lot of the usual suspects teeing it up for one another with that brand of broad-brushing and back-patting. Maybe the thread and the forums don't need more of the same from an "off-duty" moderator.

Look, right now, the owners of the D&D IP have determined that they want to put together a new edition of the game. If some folks felt that the most recent edition or the most recent two editions or the game played too much like a board game or a miniatures game for their tastes, or if someone has something to say about the rules even more specific than that (not that it has to be more specific than that), then engendering a climate on these boards or elsewhere that such opinions are automatically going to be marginalized is precisely the opposite of the help WotC needs in their efforts. They need feedback, even if you don't agree with that feedback.

The environment around these forums needs a bit of an adjustment if they are going to be of greatest use for WotC going forward. Posters cannot be walking on eggshells, needing to constantly caveat and couch any criticism they have of ANY edition as not an attack on its players or fans. The edition warring, false accusations of edition warring, the broad-brushing and marginalization all needs to come to and end if the new edition is going to get a fair chance at actually pleasing a large portion of the overall fanbase.

 

[Lwaxy]

Painting one group as almost completely irrational while simultaneously dismissing their rational points might be as blatant an edition war statement as I've seen on EN World in some time. This thread already has a lot of the usual suspects teeing it up for one another with that brand of broad-brushing and back-patting. Maybe the thread and the forums don't need more of the same from an "off-duty" moderator.

Look, right now, the owners of the D&D IP have determined that they want to put together a new edition of the game. If some folks felt that the most recent edition or the most recent two editions or the game played too much like a board game or a miniatures game for their tastes, or if someone has something to say about the rules even more specific than that (not that it has to be more specific than that), then engendering a climate on these boards or elsewhere that such opinions are automatically going to be marginalized is precisely the opposite of the help WotC needs in their efforts. They need feedback, even if you don't agree with that feedback.

The environment around these forums needs a bit of an adjustment if they are going to be of greatest use for WotC going forward. Posters cannot be walking on eggshells, needing to constantly caveat and couch any criticism they have of ANY edition as not an attack on its players or fans. The edition warring, false accusations of edition warring, the broad-brushing and marginalization all needs to come to and end if the new edition is going to get a fair chance at actually pleasing a large portion of the overall fanbase.

You managed to confused me. What's your point? And who is irrational?

There has been a lot of feedback on these boards and elsewhere. If you are saying people need to stop complaining about posts for "edition warring," that's probably true, but it's not likely going to stop nor is it going to stop people at meetups or conventions to vent their frustration.

And the latter is mainly what this thread is about. To me, it is as frustrating to come into a store looking for non-4e players and then find those players more busy complaining of 4e than bothering to form a new group or join up an existing one.

Maybe edition warring is a silly term to begin with, but it's been established now and I doubt people will stop using it. Although, among those not using online resources much, the term is usually unknown. At least around here.

 

[Mark CMG]

You managed to confused me. What's your point? And who is irrational?

I'm not saying folks are irrational. You are painting most criticism of rules or a ruleset as irrational when you state the following above -

I have serious doubts that the edition wars in regards to 4e are based on how the game plays in most cases. (. . .)

So when someone goes at you for playing a board game, miniature game, how messed up the rules are or whatever, most of the time what they are saying is "how can you support the edition that betrayed all that our D&D stood for?"

You're assigning a motivation to the majority of people who hold an opinion of a set of rules. That's part of the problem not the solution.

 

[Lwaxy]

I

You're assigning a motivation to the majority of people who hold an opinion of a set of rules. That's part of the problem not the solution.

It's my observation (and that of other posters, it seems, as well, i.e Girl Genius) one that definitely holds true in our groups and local stores, together with the reason that some groups broke up over what to play. I've heard "4e killed my setting/campaign/group/whatever" several times. And I saw the "4e is a board game" comment a few times when non-4e players happen to watch a miniature battle, not even much different form the ones they do in their own games. People who didn't ever try 4e included. And the example of the guy claiming to play 4e for the first time just to go and complain about how bad it is every time is a step into the weird world.

I haven't even talked about rules, so why you'd think I am talking about people complaining about actual rules not being rational is beyond me. This thread is about the more irrational ways people react, from the intro post to the Girl Genius example.

 

[Mark CMG]

I haven't even talked about rules, (. . .)

Precisely the problem. You're perpetuating the edition wars by making sweeping judgments of groups. I don't know how well you know each and every person you claim makes up the group you then broad brush as motivated in the way you describe them above but the point is that they are individual cases with individual backgrounds and reasons for making the statements they make. But the main problem is your leap from grouping those individuals and assigning them all a single irrational motivation to then making the statement even more broad to include most anyone who has a similar criticism with which you simply disagree. Again, this is part of the problem not the solution.

 

[Lwaxy]

Precisely the problem. You're perpetuating the edition wars by making sweeping judgments of groups. I don't know how well you know each and every person you claim makes up the group you then broad brush as motivated in the way you describe them above but the point is that they are individual cases with individual backgrounds and reasons for making the statements they make. But the main problem is your leap from grouping those individuals and assigning them all a single irrational motivation to then making the statement even more broad to include most anyone who has a similar criticism with which you simply disagree. Again, this is part of the problem not the solution.

OK, now it is getting weird. It's gone from confusing me into WTH? area.

I know the players in my main groups rather well, at least when it comes to their feelings about different games to play or not to play. I don't consider them irrational when they blame their frustrations (plural, several reasons, not some single motivation) on 4e, that's something you paint on them. To me, that's a normal reaction, I had it as well at first. People aren't all logical creatures.

I don't know what you think I disagree with. What am I disagreeing with without knowing about it again?

The way I see it, I post my observations and you jump on me for it, while in the same post complaining about people having to walk on eggshells. Hypocrisy much?

Seriously, I see no point in this. Maybe you are talking a different language, culturally speaking, but it's not going anywhere. You just seem to turn everything upside down that I'm saying, assigning new meanings to it. So I'll end this discussion here. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to say.